Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Creative Transformation in Literary Texts: Modelling Change Across Representational Levels

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Literary creativity shows up as selective inheritance: keep one layer of a source text, change the others.

desk verdict Solid exploratory multi-channel diagnostic for literary transformation; the profiles are the real product, while the peak-and-divergence score partly bakes in the theory it claims to find. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28513 v1 pith:X3VX3BY6 submitted 2026-07-30 cs.CL

Ioana-Roxana Boriceanu , Liviu P. Dinu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords creativetransformationliteraryinfluencemulti-leveltextualsimilaritydirectionalalignmentstylometrynarrativedynamicsintertextualitycomputationalcreativity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that many literary works are not pure inventions but selective transformations of earlier ones. Instead of a single similarity score, it compares a source and a later text on five layers at once—wording, meaning, conceptual categories, stylistic structure, and narrative pacing—after aligning them directionally so expansions, cuts, and reorderings are allowed. On historically linked pairs (James to Wharton, Homeric epic to Joyce and Woolf, and so on), the model finds strong retention in one or two layers combined with clear divergence in others, and these channeled profiles separate related pairs from control pairs more cleanly than any single layer alone. The point is diagnostic: the resulting profiles show where imitation persists and where creative change happens, treating invention as structured reworking rather than distance from a corpus average.

What carries the argument

The channelled imitation model: directional DTW alignment of text windows, five calibrated similarity channels (lexical, structural, semantic, conceptual, narrative), and an aggregation score that rewards the strongest retained channel while boosting when other channels diverge.

What would settle it

Rebuild the reference and control sets with independent literary judgments or a larger held-out canon; if channeled scores no longer separate the groups better than the best single channel (e.g. embedding similarity), the selective-transformation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Historically documented literary relationships produce distinctive five-channel transformation profiles—strong retention in one or two representational levels with divergence in the rest—that separate from chronologically filtered control pairs more strongly than lexical overlap, topics, or embeddings alone. Creativity, on this account, occupies the middle of the retention spectrum: neither near-copying nor random rupture, but channeled inheritance.

Load-bearing premise

The method treats a small set of scholarship-chosen related pairs as true cases of creative transformation and the control pairs as lacking meaningful influence, so higher scores can be read as recovering real inheritance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Influence detection should report multi-layer retention/divergence profiles, not one similarity number.
  • Different literary relationships will peak on different channels (narrative for some prose lines, semantic for modernist reworkings of epic).
  • Translation pairs that keep plot but change style should score high on semantic/lexical retention with structural or pacing divergence.
  • Generators prompted to imitate or transform a source can be checked for shallow surface copy versus deeper semantic, conceptual, or narrative inheritance.
  • Genealogical transformation profiles complement corpus-level novelty measures for works that mainly break from a field rather than a single precursor.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same five-channel profile could rank candidate precursors for a text whose influences are disputed, turning the diagnostic into a search tool.
  • If channel peaks prove stable across languages, the framework could test whether cross-lingual adaptation preserves narrative arcs more than lexical form.
  • Education and editing tools might surface which layer a rewrite kept or broke, making ‘creative transformation’ inspectable rather than purely intuitive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper models literary creativity as selective transformation of prior works across five representational channels (lexical, semantic, conceptual, structural, narrative). It aligns source and target texts directionally via DTW on Sentence-BERT window embeddings (Eq. 1, λ=0.15), extracts multi-feature channel scores, calibrates them against tradition-matched controls with variance-ratio weights (Eq. 4), and aggregates via a peak-plus-divergence diagnostic I = max(0, z_peak)(1 + α n_neg) (Eq. 7). On 10 scholarship-documented reference pairs versus 73 chronologically filtered controls, the channelled score separates groups more strongly (rank-biserial r=0.74, AUC=0.87) than single-channel baselines (best: Sentence-BERT r=0.41, AUC=0.71; Table 5). Case profiles (Figure 1, Table 6) illustrate different retained layers across relationships (e.g., semantic peak for Odyssey→Ulysses; narrative for James→Wharton).

Significance. If the result holds under non-circular aggregation and broader validation, the work offers a useful diagnostic alternative to both class-level novelty metrics in computational creativity and single-signal intertextuality detection. Strengths include: (i) an explicit multi-level operationalization of Tarde/Baldwin/Genette-style transformation rather than uniform similarity; (ii) directional alignment that accommodates compression and expansion; (iii) control-calibrated channel scores and a clear baseline comparison (Table 5) showing multi-channel configuration outperforming lexical reuse, TF–IDF, LDA, and SBERT alone; (iv) interpretable pair-level profiles rather than a black-box influence classifier; and (v) an appropriately cautious Limitations section. These contributions are relevant to computational literary studies and to evaluating generative systems prompted to transform source material.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method: Channelled Aggregation; Eq. 7; Table 5–6] Eq. 7 and the Experiments claim: I = max(0, z_peak)(1 + α n_neg) with α=0.20 and divergence defined as z_c < −0.5 directly encodes the verbal theory that creative transformation is ‘strong retention in one channel combined with divergence in others.’ Table 6 then ranks Odyssey(Pope)→Ulysses (I=8.19, one large semantic peak plus several negative channels) above the more uniformly similar translation pair (I=3.06) largely because of that bonus. The headline superiority over single-channel baselines (Table 5: r=0.74/AUC=0.87 vs SBERT 0.41/0.71) is therefore not yet shown to be an independent empirical discovery of selective inheritance. Please report reference–control separation under non-channelling aggregators on the same z vectors (e.g., plain max(z), mean of positive z, sum of z, or L2 norm), and/or fix α=0 and ablate the −0.5 threshold. If separation collapses toward the SBERT baseline
  2. [Dataset; Experiments and Results; Table 4–6] The empirical separation rests on n=10 reference pairs (Table 2) chosen from literary scholarship and 73 controls. Limitations correctly calls these ‘historically plausible cases, not definitive instances of influence,’ yet Results treat the Mann–Whitney result (U=635, p<0.001, r=0.74) and top-rank concentration as evidence that the framework recovers creative transformation. With so few positives, a handful of Homeric–modernist pairs (Table 6) can dominate the effect size. Please add leave-one-reference-out stability of r/AUC, a fuller ranking table for all 10 references, and sensitivity to alternative reference/control membership (e.g., dropping both Odyssey→Ulysses directions; treating translation pairs separately from influence pairs). Without this, the group-level claim is under-powered relative to the strength of the interpretation.
  3. [Preprocessing and Directional Alignment; Discriminative Feature Weighting; Experiments] Several load-bearing constants are fixed without justification or sensitivity analysis: DTW positional bias λ=0.15 (Eq. 1), window size/step 2000/500, LDA 50 topics / LSA 100 dims, weight floor 0.01, divergence threshold −0.5, and α=0.20. The paper reports that sliding windows beat chapter segmentation (r=0.74 vs 0.35) but does not show robustness of the channelled-vs-baseline gap to λ, α, or windowing. A compact sensitivity or grid check on these choices—especially λ and the divergence threshold that feeds n_neg—is needed before the multi-channel advantage can be treated as stable rather than tuned to the small reference set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced as ‘Five-Channel Transformation Profiles’ but the manuscript text does not specify color scales, normalization, or whether rows are ordered by I; a brief caption expansion would help readers interpret retention vs divergence at a glance.
  2. [Multi-Level Representational Channels; Table 3] Table 3 lists feature families per channel, but the main text does not state how multiple features within a channel are reduced to the single z_c used in Eq. 5–7 (mean, PCA, max, learned weights?). One clarifying sentence would remove ambiguity.
  3. [Lexical channel; Eqs. 2–3] The dampened KL in Eqs. 2–3 is written as ln(1 + max(0, S)) with S = Σ P ln(P/Q); confirm whether Q is smoothed and how zero-support bins are handled, since undamped KL is undefined otherwise.
  4. [Dataset; Experiments] Control construction (‘chronologically filtered,’ source→target only) is described clearly in Experiments but only loosely in Dataset; aligning the two sections would avoid confusion about whether reverse-direction pairs ever enter the 73.
  5. [Throughout; Acknowledgements] Minor typography: ‘G ´erard Genette’, ‘S , tefan Agopian’, ‘B ˘altoiu’, and ‘V oyage Out’ show encoding artifacts; clean for camera-ready.
  6. [Related Work] Related Work cites strong stylometry and intertextuality lines; a brief note on how the present directional multi-channel setup differs from passage-retrieval intertextuality (e.g., Burns et al. 2021) beyond the baseline table would sharpen the contribution statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Theory-aligned aggregator I encodes selective retention-plus-divergence by design; reference–control wins on I partly restate that definition, but channel z-profiles and external pair labels remain independent empirical content.

  1. self definitional [Method § Channelled Aggregation of Influence, Eqs. 6–7; restated in Experiments/Results and Table 6]
    "Creative transformation often involves strong retention in one channel combined with divergence in others. To capture this pattern, we introduce a diagnostic scoring function that highlights channelled inheritance across representational levels: I = max(0, z_peak)(1 + α n_neg) where n_neg is the number of channels whose standardized score falls below a divergence threshold of z_c < −0.5 ... and α is a scaling constant set to 0.20. ... This design reflects the theoretical expectation that creative transformation is characterised by a distinctive configuration in which strong inheritance in a sp"

    I is defined to equal the paper’s verbal theory (peak retention × bonus for how many other channels diverge). Reference–control separation and case rankings on I (e.g. Odyssey(Pope)→Ulysses at 8.19 beating the more uniformly similar translation pair at 3.06) are then cited as evidence that historically related works exhibit selective transformation. Success on I therefore partly restates the scoring definition rather than independently discovering the pattern; an alternative aggregator (plain max, mean of positive z, sum) is not reported, so the headline superiority of the ‘channelled’ model over single channels is not fully separated from the baked-in divergence bonus. The underlying z-profiles remain non-circular empirical observations.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing empirical chain is: (i) external scholarship labels for 10 reference pairs vs 73 chronologically filtered controls; (ii) independently computed, control-calibrated five-channel z-vectors from lexical/structural/semantic/conceptual/narrative features after directional DTW alignment; (iii) aggregation via Eq. 7 into a scalar I; (iv) Mann–Whitney / AUC separation and case-study peaks offered as evidence that creative transformation is selective inheritance. Steps (i)–(ii) are not circular: labels come from literary history, not from the scorer, and z_c are feature similarities standardized against tradition-matched controls. The only circular pressure is at (iii)–(iv). Equation 7 defines I = max(0, z_peak)(1 + α n_neg) expressly so that “strong retention in one channel combined with divergence in others” receives a higher score; the paper then treats higher I on reference pairs as support for that same verbal theory. That is hypothesis-aligned measurement, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and it does not force reference pairs to win—only pairs whose z-vectors already show a peak-plus-divergence pattern do. No self-citation is load-bearing (the sole author-overlapping cite is incidental related work). No uniqueness theorem or smuggled ansatz appears. Single-channel baselines in Table 5 still supply a partial non-circular check that multi-channel configuration matters. Score 3 reflects one mild self-definitional loop in the aggregator-as-evidence step, not collapse of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central separation result rests on hand-chosen alignment and scoring constants, on treating scholarship-derived pairs as positive influence labels, on tradition labels for control calibration, and on proxy features standing in for literary structure. No formal derivation links Tarde/Baldwin theory to the formula for I; I is an operational definition. Invented constructs are the channelled model and its aggregate score, without independent measurement outside this pipeline.

free parameters (6)
  • DTW positional bias λ = 0.15
    Set to 0.15 in all experiments to cap positional penalty; not cross-validated; directly shapes alignments that feed every channel.
  • Channelled score divergence weight α = 0.20
    Scales bonus for number of channels with z_c < −0.5 in I; chosen as 0.20 so max bonus is 1.8; defines the selectivity signal.
  • Divergence threshold for n_neg = -0.5
    Channels count as diverging when standardized score < −0.5 (half SD below control mean); hand threshold enters I.
  • Sliding window size and step = 2000 / 500 tokens
    ≈2000-token windows, 500-token step; segmentation choice changes reference-control r from 0.35 (chapters) to 0.74 (windows).
  • LDA topic count and LSA rank = 50 topics; 100 dims
    Fixed at 50 topics and 100 LSA dimensions before pair evaluation; affects semantic channel.
  • Feature weight floor and ε = floor 0.01; ε small positive
    w_f = max(0.01, σ_tradition/σ_global+ε); floor and ε are ad hoc stabilizers that alter calibrated z_c.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Literary creativity relevant to this study is selective transformation of identifiable precursors rather than only class-level novelty.
    Stated in Introduction via Tarde, Baldwin, Kristeva, Genette; orients the whole pipeline away from distributional creativity metrics.
  • domain assumption Influence is directional from earlier source A to later target B and can be recovered by DTW window alignment with mild positional bias.
    Preprocessing and Directional Alignment section; reverse chronological pairs are excluded as impossible.
  • ad hoc to paper The five proxy feature families (token stats, function-word networks, SBERT/LDA/LSA, supersenses/NER/concreteness, pacing/sentiment/complexity series) adequately represent lexical through narrative structure.
    Table 3 and Multi-Level Representational Channels; Limitations admits these are simplified proxies.
  • domain assumption Scholarship-documented reference pairs are positive cases of transformation; unpaired corpus combinations are adequate non-influence controls after chronological filtering.
    Dataset Tables 1–2 and Experiments; Limitations notes pairs are historically plausible, not formal ground truth.
  • ad hoc to paper Tradition-grouped variance ratios correctly up-weight features that discriminate inheritance from shared period style.
    Discriminative Feature Weighting equation for w_f; traditions assigned by literary/national grouping.
  • ad hoc to paper Creative transformation is diagnostically indicated by max-channel retention plus multi-channel divergence as encoded in I.
    Channelled Aggregation equations 6–7; matches the verbal hypothesis by construction.
  • standard math Standard NLP similarity tools (cosine, JS divergence, dampened KL, correlation on time series) are valid channel comparators after control standardization.
    Used throughout Method without novel statistical theory.
invented entities (3)
  • Channelled Imitation Model (five-channel transformation profile)
    purpose: Unified relational object z=(narr,struct,sem,concept,lex) describing selective retention/divergence between two works.
    Core contribution named in Method; no measurement of the profile exists outside this feature stack.
  • Aggregate selectivity score I
    purpose: Scalar diagnostic that boosts pairs with a strong peak channel and several diverging channels.
    Equation 7; defined to operationalize the paper's creativity hypothesis rather than derived from external theory.
  • Tradition-calibrated discriminative feature weights w_f
    purpose: Reweight features by within-tradition vs global variance before standardization against controls.
    Equation 4; depends on author-assigned tradition labels with no external validation set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Creative Transformation in Literary Texts: Modelling Change Across Representational Levels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3VX3BY6

@misc{pith2026260728513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Creative Transformation in Literary Texts: Modelling Change Across Representational Levels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3VX3BY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28513}
}
read the original abstract

Creativity is often framed as the production of novelty, yet many cultural works emerge through transformation of earlier artifacts and not through isolated invention. Drawing on theories of imitation by Gabriel Tarde and James Mark Baldwin, this paper models creativity as selective transformation across multiple levels of textual representation. We introduce a multi-level framework that compares literary texts across lexical, semantic, conceptual, structural, and narrative dimensions using directional alignment and control calibrated similarity measures. Applying the model to historically documented literary relationships, we show that different pairs preserve source structure at different representational levels while diverging in others. These transformation profiles provide a quantitative method for characterizing how imitation persists and where creative divergence occurs within literary works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Five-Channel Transformation Profiles the standardized similarity score for channel c. The resulting five-dimensional vector z = (znarr, zstruct, zsem, zconcept, zlex) (5) represents the influence profile between the two works. The model identifies the strongest retained structure as the primary locus of inheritance: zpeak = max c (zc) (6) Creative transformation often involves strong retention in one channel combine… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2004 , publisher=

    The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms , author=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  2. [2]

    Creativity research journal , volume=

    The standard definition of creativity , author=. Creativity research journal , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  3. [3]

    2016 , publisher=

    AI: Its nature and future , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  4. [4]

    2019 , publisher=

    Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  5. [5]

    Intelligenza Artificiale , volume=

    Deepcreativity: measuring creativity with deep learning techniques , author=. Intelligenza Artificiale , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  6. [6]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume=

    Creativity and machine learning: A survey , author=. ACM Computing Surveys , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design , pages=

    Evaluating creativity in humans, computers, and collectively intelligent systems , author=. Proceedings of the 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design , pages=

  8. [8]

    Minds and Machines , volume=

    Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program , author=. Minds and Machines , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    1903 , publisher=

    The laws of imitation , author=. 1903 , publisher=

    1903

  2. [10]

    Mind , volume=

    Imitation: A chapter in the natural history of consciousness , author=. Mind , volume=. 1894 , publisher=

  3. [11]

    Atlantis , pages=

    Intertextuality: Origins and development of the concept , author=. Atlantis , pages=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  4. [12]

    Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art , author=

    Word, dialogue, and novel. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art , author=. T. Gora et al , year=

  5. [13]

    1977 , publisher=

    Image-music-text , author=. 1977 , publisher=

    1977

  6. [14]

    1997 , publisher=

    Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree , author=. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  7. [15]

    Knowledge-based systems , volume=

    A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems , author=. Knowledge-based systems , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  8. [16]

    , author=

    Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems. , author=. AAAI spring symposium: creative intelligent systems , volume=. 2008 , organization=

    2008

  9. [17]

    Cognitive Computation , volume=

    A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative , author=. Cognitive Computation , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05470 , year=

    Rethinking creativity evaluation: A critical analysis of existing creativity evaluations , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05470 , year=

  11. [19]

    Computational creativity: The philosophy and engineering of autonomously creative systems , pages=

    Expectation-based models of novelty for evaluating computational creativity , author=. Computational creativity: The philosophy and engineering of autonomously creative systems , pages=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03601 , year=

    The creative frontier of generative ai: Managing the novelty-usefulness tradeoff , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03601 , year=

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05499 , year=

    A machine learning approach for evaluating creative artifacts , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05499 , year=

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    The Journal of Creative Behavior , volume=

    A ‘Sweet Spot’for Creative Ideation: Non-Linear Associations Between Semantic Distance and Creativity , author=. The Journal of Creative Behavior , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  15. [23]

    AI & SOCIETY , volume=

    A computational approach for creativity assessment of culinary products: The case of elBulli , author=. AI & SOCIETY , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  16. [24]

    , author=

    Ensemble-Based Clustering for Writing Style Change Detection in Multi-Authored Textual Documents. , author=. CLEF (Working Notes) , pages=

  17. [25]

    CLEF 2018 Evaluation Labs and Workshop--Working Notes Papers, CEUR-WS

    An ensemble-rich multi-aspect approach for robust style change detection , author=. CLEF 2018 Evaluation Labs and Workshop--Working Notes Papers, CEUR-WS. org , pages=

    2018

  18. [26]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    Inference in an authorship problem: A comparative study of discrimination methods applied to the authorship of the disputed Federalist Papers , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1963 , publisher=

    1963

  19. [27]

    Communications of the ACM , volume=

    Automatically profiling the author of an anonymous text , author=. Communications of the ACM , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  20. [28]

    Literary and linguistic computing , volume=

    ‘Delta’: a measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship , author=. Literary and linguistic computing , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  21. [29]

    Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology , volume=

    A survey of modern authorship attribution methods , author=. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  22. [30]

    Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON) , pages=

    BertAA: BERT fine-tuning for Authorship Attribution , author=. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON) , pages=

  23. [31]

    ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , volume=

    Authorship attribution in the era of llms: Problems, methodologies, and challenges , author=. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  24. [32]

    Working Notes of CLEF , year=

    Style change detection using graph and structural-linguistic features for multi-author writing analysis , author=. Working Notes of CLEF , year=

  25. [33]

    IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations , pages=

    Cross-domain authorship attribution using pre-trained language models , author=. IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics , pages=

    Topic or style? exploring the most useful features for authorship attribution , author=. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics , pages=

  27. [35]

    2011 , publisher=

    Intertextuality , author=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  28. [36]

    Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , volume=

    Modeling the scholars: Detecting intertextuality through enhanced word-level n-gram matching , author=. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages=

    Profiling of intertextuality in Latin literature using word embeddings , author=. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages=

    2021

  30. [38]

    Proceedings http://ceur-ws

    A statistical foray into contextual aspects of intertextuality , author=. Proceedings http://ceur-ws. org ISSN , volume=

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06637 , year=

    Modelling Intertextuality with N-gram Embeddings , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06637 , year=

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Anthology of Computers and the Humanities , volume=

    Between Woolf and Homer: An Explorative Approach to Intertextuality Detection using Large Language Models , author=. Anthology of Computers and the Humanities , volume=

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Quantitative patterns of stylistic influence in the evolution of literature , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  34. [42]

    EPJ data science , volume=

    The emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes , author=. EPJ data science , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 , year=

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 , year=

    1908 arXiv

  36. [44]

    2010 , publisher=

    The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays , author=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  37. [45]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=

    Authorship attribution through function word adjacency networks , author=. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  38. [46]

    Journal of machine Learning research , volume=

    Latent dirichlet allocation , author=. Journal of machine Learning research , volume=

  39. [47]

    Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Broad-coverage sense disambiguation and information extraction with a supersense sequence tagger , author=. Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2006

  40. [48]

    Behavior research methods , volume=

    Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas , author=. Behavior research methods , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  41. [49]

    Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

    Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

  42. [50]

    Poetics , volume=

    Significant themes in 19th-century literature , author=. Poetics , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.